Purina - NSC Values & kcal/lb values

[Chezzie]

[QUOTE=beowulf;6827292]
I label it a sweet feed because despite Purina’s play as it being a “nugget/pelleted feed”, it still is a mixture of various grains with a high amount of molasses in it. Just because it is in a pellet form does not mean it isn’t a sweet-feed to me. Being a trained Purina Expert myself (as in, my store was certified and we had many Purina Experts teach us about Purina products), I’ve seen a variety of feeds marketed as something they may/may not be classified directly as: to me, if it is bound together, crushed, rolled, and has high molasses concentrate, it is a sweet feed even if it isn’t advertised as such - note: Ultium spoils quickly because of its molasses content (:

You don’t have to agree with me, and that’s fine.[/QUOTE]

How could something with a high molasses content have an NSC of 15%? I’m not being sarcastic…I’m genuinely asking.

[JB]

[QUOTE=beowulf;6827292]
I label it a sweet feed because despite Purina’s play as it being a “nugget/pelleted feed”, it still is a mixture of various grains with a high amount of molasses in it. Just because it is in a pellet form does not mean it isn’t a sweet-feed to me. [/QUOTE]
Being a textured feed doesn’t make something a sweet feed either

15% simply isn’t in the ballpark of “sweet feed”. It doesn’t matter that there’s molasses in it, and if it’s only 15% NSC, it can’t have that much in the way of actual grains or molasses.

TC Growth is a very “sweet” looking and tasting feed, but at 13% NSC, lower than the UC, it’s not remotely a sweet feed either

Being a trained Purina Expert myself (as in, my store was certified and we had many Purina Experts teach us about Purina products), I’ve seen a variety of feeds marketed as something they may/may not be classified directly as: to me, if it is bound together, crushed, rolled, and has high molasses concentrate, it is a sweet feed even if it isn’t advertised as such - note: Ultium spoils quickly because of its molasses content (:

At 15% NSC, it just can’t have a high molasses content.

Obviously you can call a feed whatever you like, but the traditional “sweet feed” is lots of grains and lots of molasses and a high NSC value. There are high NSC pelleted feeds I wouldn’t call a sweet feed either, since some of them are so high simply because of the large amount of grains in it, even when there isn’t a lot of molassed

[Simkie]

Awesome list!!

But no Equine Senior Active Healthy Edge which I feed from time to time. Have always been curious about calories and NSC. Guess I’ll have to get off my ass and ask them :lol: At least they seem to be forthcoming with the info!

[jjgg24]

The main problem with feed companies posting something like a specific NSC is that yes some bags will test at what is on the bag but others will not. Therefore, if someone tests a bag theirs comes back abnormal it could cause a big stink.

I’m not saying this is right but as it stands every bag doesn’t have to be identical. With more standardization comes in increase in price of grain which wouldn’t make consumers happy either.

Now for the average horse does it probably matter that each bag isn’t identical no. For digestively or metabolically challenged horses though this is where as an owner things get a little tricky. Hopefully you get lucky and the horse isn’t super sensitive to the inconsistencies but if the horse is sensitive it is time to “build” your own complete feed. A pain yes and challenging but I’d rather know know without a shadow of a doubt that the feed is safe then worry about a bag of grain being off and it affecting my horse.

[JB]

All they have to do is say that’s the average NSC and then list the standard deviation from that if they want - that way nobody can pin them down.

But as for building your own - that wouldn’t be any different from the company making their own. Oats are generally X NSC, but there’s still variation. Same with any hay. Heck, even beet pulp can vary - Equi-Analytical has a range of WSC from 3.9 to 17.6. Oats can range from 1.6 to 5.1. Alf pellets ranged from 5.6 to 9.7, all from E-A. Some things seem to be able to range more than others, as the entire NSC of Bermudagrass hay ranged from 9 to 17.

[jjgg24]

JB,

I don’t disagree with you at all. Sure it would be great to have an average with standard deviations. Maybe one day it will happen I think it would be fantastic.

I also agree that some feed stuffs will vary greatly. Again depending on the horse and their needs I’d make the best decisions I could from there.

[JB]

Yep, and the good thing by making your own is that if you find an ingredient that, despite what the books say, doesn’t work for that horse, you just eliminate it without having to totally redo your formula otherwise

[SuckerForHorses]

I am still trying to figure out why space on their website is such an issue…if Triple Crown can do it, why can’t Purina? [and I pointed this out to them in my response…]

[iPony]

Can this thread be moved into the Reference forum?

[SueNH]

If a little company like VT’s Poulin Grain can post values an international company like Purina should be able to.

http://www.poulingrain.com/resources/Poulin_Horse_Feed_Carbohydrate.pdf

[SuckerForHorses]

[QUOTE=SueNH;7305560]
If a little company like VT’s Poulin Grain can post values an international company like Purina should be able to.

http://www.poulingrain.com/resources/Poulin_Horse_Feed_Carbohydrate.pdf[/QUOTE]

That’s what I told the woman at Purina

[morgonmadness]

I know this is an old thread, but I came on it when I was looking into NSC values. I discovered that the Poulin Grain link still works. However, Poulin has an updated chart that shows different values, generally higher. Here’s an update as of 10/28/14.
http://www.poulingrain.com/resources/Poulin_Horse_Feed_Carbohydrate_Terminology.pdf